Microsoft not only hates the General Public Licence as a matter of principle (its CEO once called it a "cancer"). Microsoft hates the GNU GPL version 3 even more. It hates it with passion. Months ago it seems to have sent several of its lobbying arms to the media where disinformation was perpetually spread.

After each such strike, people like Bruce Perens tore apart the newly-created GPLv3 FUD and myths. But was it enough? The press is still littered with disinformation and people's perceptions are still tainted with half truths and lies. Sadly, money and influence bought presence and 'air time'. The anti-GPL propaganda continues to this date, despite the increasing embrace.

According to an article that repeats an old story, Microsoft's deals with Xandros and Linspire reflected on what was coming. Microsoft knew all too well that its plan would possibly backfire. This was confirmed when the licence got finalised and released.

Microsoft likely foresaw this during the GPL 3 draft process, which is why neither the Xandros or Linspire deals included voucher provisions.

In its attempt to escape the grip of the GPLv3, Microsoft is even willing to betray Novell, which was supposed to be its Linux partner. About a month ago it was argued that Microsoft had thrown out its SUSE coupons out of a plane, so to speak, because it realised that GPLv3 would be very effective. It would clearly achieve its goals.

Here comes the fun part. As we saw at the end of last week, Microsoft is willing to do everything necessary to carry on with the plot and at the same time deny any involvement with GPLv3-licensed software. This was laughable. Microsoft thinks (or would love to think) otherwise. A certain mystery remains here, however, because one has to cast doubt on their possibilities. SCO too has argued that its software had not been 'contaminated' by the GPL, but as Groklaw showed last night, they were wrong.

SCO seems to have started something, when, after releasing software under the GPL for years, it now claims it never knowingly did so. As you know, Microsoft has now declared its GPL-virginity as well.

[...]

I feel like a cad, pointing out SCO slept with the GPL, but there you are, in black and white, ladies and gentlemen (and, as Groklaw member pem points out, a little bit of red too). Caldera certainly said it released its own code under the GPL, and it appears to have understood quite well at the time precisely what it was doing.

Can Microsoft ever carry on with its plan? At present, any 'protected' Linux distribution is becoming less appealing by the day. Up-to-date software is just not there. So, who would possible wish to liaise with Microsoft at this stage? Those IP deals seem less attractive than ever before.

Novell, Linspire and Xandros may see their status drop into oblivion. This would serve as a lesson and warning sign to anyone who might be tempted to endorse Microsoft's IP claims. GPLv3 redefines the terms (and thus worth) of these deals. If Microsoft carries on denying its obligations to the GPL, it might get caught red-handed, just like SCO.